GameReviewPad Review Structure

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

GameReviewPad provides reviews in a structure that gives the reader information and tools that other review site neglect to provide. Contributors showcase their gaming history in every review to build a relationship with the reader. Every contributor is allowed their own structure within the body, but no review scores are allowed.

 

1. Review Context
The review context represents the contributor’s history with the genre or franchise of a particular game. The review context is designed to develop a relationship between the reader and each individual review.

Sample Examples for Final Fantasy XV

Example I: “This is the first time I have ever played a Final Fantasy game.”

In the above example, a reader who has played few or no Final Fantasy games may find the review more helpful rather than a reader who has played most Final Fantasy games.

Example II: “I’ve played every Final Fantasy game except for Final Fantasy II.”

In above example, a reader who is a Final Fantasy franchise veteran may find the review more helpful rather than a reviewer who has played few or no Final Fantasy games.

Example III: “I have a lot of JRPG experience, but I have only played Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy XIII,”

In the above example, the reviewer states his genre experience level, but also only experience with a select amount of Final Fantasy games. This is probably the most common variant of Review Contexts a reader can expect from GameReviewPad.

Not only can the Review Context provide an overall snapshot of the contributor’s experience, but it can foreshadow how a review may be written, like with few or many comparisons to previous games of a franchise or genre.

GameReviewPad allows multiple full length reviews of the same game for the same platform if another contributor has a very different experience level with the genre or franchise that produces an opposite opinion.

2. Date Playthrough Started
This is the date the contributor started to play the reviewed game. This date is important because it also determines the technical state of the game when it was played. If the review doesn’t mention a technical flaw in the game it may be because the game was played after the issue was fixed. It also works the other way around. If a review mentions many technical issues, but the issues were fixed shortly after then the reader knows the reason why they were mentioned.
(See 6. Patch this Review)

3. Developer/Publisher
This just states the publisher and developer. No explanation needed.

4. Contributor’s Body Structure
The contributor gets to choose their preferred body structure. Some contributors prefer full essay form, while others may prefer separating the review into subsections. The names of potential subsections are the contributor’s choice also.

5. PC/Mac Specifications
These are the PC/Mac specifications of the contributor’s play settings for that particular game. If the review mentions the technical state of the game then the PC/Mac specs are important to know in order to give full context of the problem.

6. Similar Games Liked/Disliked
The similar games liked/disliked section includes one or two games of the same genre or franchise that the contributor liked and/or disliked.

Have you ever read an extremely negative review and wondered, “Well then what does this person like?” This section is to help develop a relationship between the reader and the contributor. If the reader starts to see a pattern with a particular contributor where there is agreement on the reviews and the similar games liked/disliked, then the reader can develop trust with that contributor.

GameReviewPad © 2015
Privacy Policy